Abstract :

Traditional performance management systems often suffer from bureaucracy and inefficiency in providing timely feedback and support (Awan et al., 2020). To address these issues, KPC implemented Entomo, a performance management platform with advanced features like goal creation, progress tracking, continuous feedback, and data analytics. This technology-driven approach aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of performance management practices. KPC’s Entomo implementation provides an opportunity to research the adoption of performance management system technology. This study evaluates KPC’s experiences, identifies factors with a positive and significant relationship with the application and performance management application, and offers recommendations to enhance the performance management system.

The research employed the technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989) and a quantitative approach using questionnaires. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed several important insights. The findings indicate that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude toward using are key determinants of the intention to use the technology or system. Notably, attitude toward using has the strongest influence on users’ intention to adopt and use the system, followed by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. The research suggests that organizations should prioritize improving user attitudes, enhancing perceived usefulness, and ensuring the system is easy to use when implementing new performance management applications to drive successful adoption.

---

Keywords :

Performance Management Application, Performance Management System, Technology Acceptance Model., Technology Adoption

---

References :

1. Awan, S H., Habib, N., Akhtar, C S., & Naveed, S. (2020, October 1). Effectiveness of Performance Management System for Employee Performance Through Engagement.
2. Davis, F D., Bagozzi, R P., & Warshaw, P R. (1989, August 1). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models.
3. Yeou, M. (2016, January 28). An Investigation of Students’ Acceptance of Moodle in a Blended Learning Setting Using Technology Acceptance Model. SAGE Publishing, 44(3), 300-318.
4. Davis, F D. (1987, January 1). User acceptance of information systems: the technology acceptance model (TAM).
5. Kamal, S A., Shafiq, M., & Kakria, P. (2020, February 1). Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM).
6. Zaineldeen, S., Li, H., Koffi, A L., & Hassan, B M A. (2020, October 1). Technology Acceptance Model’ Concepts, Contribution, Limitation, and Adoption in Education. Horizon Research Publishing, 8(11), 5061-5071.
7. Zhong-qing, H., Ding, S., Li, S., Chen, L., & Yang, S. (2019, March 7). Adoption Intention of Fintech Services for Bank Users: An Empirical Examination with an Extended Technology Acceptance Model.
8. Granić, A. (2023, January 1). Technology Acceptance and Adoption in Education.
9. Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012, March 1). Investigating the determinants of construction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model.
10. Ajzen, I. (1991, December 1). The theory of planned behavior.
11. Aldunate, R G., & Nussbaum, M. (2013, May 1). Teacher adoption of technology.
12. Saadé, R G. (2007, June 20). Dimensions of Perceived Usefulness: Toward Enhanced Assessment. Wiley-Blackwell, 5(2), 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00142.x
13. Setiawan, P Y., & Widanta, A A B P. (2021, January 1). The effect of trust on travel agent online use: Application of the technology acceptance model.
14. Grant, A M. (2008, January 1). Designing jobs to do good: Dimensions and psychological consequences of prosocial job characteristics.
15. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019, January 1). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modelling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education.
16. Boeck, P D., Pek, J., Walton, K M., Wegener, D T., Turner, B E., Andersen, B L., Beauchaine, T P., Lecavalier, L., Myung, J I., & Petty, R E. (2023, October 2). Questioning Psychological Constructs: Current Issues and Proposed Changes.
17. Hsu, C., Chang, C C., & Yansritakul, C. (2017, January 1). Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity.
18. Murillo, G R G., Novoa-Hernández, P., & Rodríguez, R S. (2020, September 28). Technology Acceptance Model and Moodle: A systematic mapping study.
19. Money, W H., & Turner, A. (2004, January 1). Application of the technology acceptance model to a knowledge management system.
20. Nasiri, M. (2021, February 5). Performance management in digital transformation: A sustainability performance approach.
21. Boca, G D., Mukaj, L., & Marsida, V. (2016, July 1). CREATING A   MODEL CULTURE OF MANAGEMENT CHANGE.
22. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2017, December 12). Research Methodology in Business: A Starter’s Guide.
23. Duncan, G J. (2008, November 1). When to promote, and when to avoid, a population perspective.
24. Masudin, I., Jie, F., & Widayat, N. (2020, January 1). Impact of halal supplier service quality and staff readiness to adopt halal technology on halal logistics performance: a study of Indonesian halal meat supply chain.
25. Krejcie, R V., & Morgan, D W. (1970, September 1). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
26. Bolarinwa, O A. (2020, January 1). Sample size estimation for health and social science researchers: The principles and considerations for different study designs.
27. Indrayan, A., & Mishra, A. (2021, January 1). The importance of small samples in medical research.
28. Palinkas, L A., Horwitz, S M., Green, C A., Wisdom, J P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013, November 6). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research.
29. Lisnatiawati, L., & Lukertina, L. (2020, January 1). Does Working Environment and Working Motivation have Big Impact on Employee Performance.
30. Khan, H U., & Johannes, F. (2018, January 1). Alignment of IT/IS in business strategies and conceptual knowledge of employees: a case study of national planning commission of Namibia.
31. Wibowo, W S., Fadhil, A., Sensuse, D I., Lusa, S., Putro, P A W., & Yulfitri, A. (2023, January 1). Pinpointing Factors in the Success of Integrated Information System Toward Open Government Data Initiative: A Perspective from Employees. Science and Information Organization, 14(1).
32. Mcleod, S. (2023, February 26). Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis.
33. Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A K. (2020, February 1). Investigating the Acceptance of Mobile Library Applications with an Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
34. Reynolds, C R., Altmann, R A., & Allen, D N. (2021, January 1). Item Development.
35. Benesty, J., Chen, J., Huang, Y., & Cohen, I. (2009, January 1). Pearson Correlation Coefficient.
36. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003, January 30). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference, 11.0 update. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 4, 386.
37. Ullah, M I. (2021, February 10). Heteroscedasticity Archives.
38. Teijlingen, E V., & Hundley, V. (2002, June 19). The importance of pilot studies.
39. Nyatanga, B. (2005, July 1). Do pilot studies have any value in research?
40. Sharts‐Hopko, N C. (2002, March 1). Reliability in Testing: Clinical and Research Applications.
41. Prasetyaningtyas, S W., Aishah, A., Hansen, B., & Kuspriandani, D. (2021, November 15). The Effect of Technological Innovation on Employee Performance in Pandemic Era: Case from Banking Industry in Indonesia. Universitas Terbuka, 17(2), 122-136.